Thomas Partey

[Luftstalag14]

Matchday money can't be easily replaced. PSG matchday revenue is one of the highest despite their "small" stadium because they can charge a lot with their lounges and hospitalities. This money can't be brought by any other mean. One of the concepts of the Accor partnership was to get an Accor-like service and feeling in PSG hospitalities (could influence some people towards choosing Accor Hotels after that experience). Wonder if that could impact their sponsorship.

Search for Deloitte Football Money League, you'll find a PDF in english.

About your second paragraph, i agree. PSG is safe thanks to its owners while other clubs, even behemots like Bar?a, can see their infrastructure renewal plans in pause due to their bad financial situation. I read you had something like a 800 M debt. Still manageable with your 1 Billion income but a bit worrying indeed.

Yannik is a Bayern fan and they are in a great shape financially. But even they will lose a significant portion of their revenue if they don't allow fans in the stadium, or at 25% etc. But I do expect the likes of their corporate shareholders such as the 3 A's come to their rescue if they do need help.

Yes, we (Barca) have a big problem with debt. If we pile up the 815m new debt financed through Goldman Saches on top of our existing debt we are talking a debt around 1.6 billion. Sure we can refinance portions of them and renegotiate the terms etc. but it will still be a huge burden. We probably have to take 100m from our coffers every year just on debt repayment.

 

[Yannik]

Matchday money can't be easily replaced. PSG matchday revenue is one of the highest despite their "small" stadium because they can charge a lot with their lounges and hospitalities. This money can't be brought by any other mean.

Not yet. But TV market expands to people who were previously consuming football only through the live experience. It's not in place yet and banks, which is why clubs right NOW struggle. But this is how it's going to develope. Every person not attending matches right now is a potential PayTV customer. In France it's 220k people on a matchday. In Italy 250k, Spain 270k, Germany 390k (and 100k are already back in the stadium through expensive matchday tickets), England 380k (ready to take the Germany route).

Streaming in general is booming, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc because people spend more time in homeoffice or unable to go out or on holiday. With more money at stake right now, broadcasters are ready to pay more for licensing. And the FAs have some serious leverage negotiating their TV deals which are ALL due in the next 1-2 years, except for France who renewed before the pandemic. Maybe it'll not fully replace matchday income, but it'll recover a large share of those losses and another part is done via political decisions by letting spectators back in.

The immediate impact of the shutdown was hard on football, this transfer window was prove that many are paying off the debt they made. But the worst part is over. By 2022, we're back to normal, with either full or limited attendance.

 

[Luftstalag14]

Not yet. But TV market expands to people who were previously consuming football only through the live experience. It's not in place yet and banks, which is why clubs right NOW struggle. But this is how it's going to develope. Every person not attending matches right now is a potential PayTV customer. In France it's 220k people on a matchday. In Italy 250k, Spain 270k, Germany 390k (and 100k are already back in the stadium through expensive matchday tickets), England 380k (ready to take the Germany route).

Streaming in general is booming, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc because people spend more time in homeoffice or unable to go out or on holiday. With more money at stake right now, broadcasters are ready to pay more for licensing. And the FAs have some serious leverage negotiating their TV deals which are ALL due in the next 1-2 years, except for France who renewed before the pandemic. Maybe it'll not fully replace matchday income, but it'll recover a large share of those losses and another part is done via political decisions by letting spectators back in.

The immediate impact of the shutdown was hard on football, this transfer window was prove that many are paying off the debt they made. But the worst part is over. By 2022, we're back to normal, with either full or limited attendance.

This might be the case 10 years from now, but not right now. The current TV deals will not grow fast enough to cover the loss in matchday revenue and not any time soon, no matter how many more people will start subscribing.

I agree that football clubs will increasingly start to compete with media outlets such as Netflix and Amazon etc. (that is why we launched Barca + and started developing original content other than direct games-related content), but for most clubs, big and small matchday income will not be easily replaced. That is another reason why clubs rushed to renovate and update their stadium, counting on luring more people to go to the games and spending more money at the venues.

 

[Yannik]

This might be the case 10 years from now, but not right now. The current TV deals will not grow fast enough to cover the loss in matchday revenue and not any time soon, no matter how many more people will start subscribing.

Don't forget in all those calculations matchday revenue isn't the same as matchday profit. Clubs are not literally making "hundreds of millions" from matchdays, we're more in the areas of tens of millions for mid sized club over all season. Hosting a sold out game costs shit (especially nowadays with riot police escorts not being paid by federal tax any longer, don't know how this is ruled abroad).

Licensing your games however doesn't cost. You're selling something that isn't physically there.

25% sold out capacity sounds like 25% matchday income, but it's far more than that. Attendances will consist more of people buying day tickets for each games, instead of one season ticket for all which are considerably cheaper in the long run. The cheap standing places are also not offered, due to hygiene concerns. People who want to attend games have to buy the 45 EUR sitting ticket instead of the 20 EUR standing ticket.

With current ruling in a risk free city, matchday revenue might probably be at 40% if we're being fair, and costs are quite low due to less security and less police force needed as these traditional fan marches are forbidden. And the FA will likely loosen up more if they think that it works. Now TV contract in Germany for example is due by 2021. And these things don't increase not "slightly" over 10 years but heavily every 3-4 years. As I said, 2020 Ligue Un got a 60% increase on the previous deal they made in 2016. And this deal was negotiated in 2018, long before Covid and streaming inflation wasn't expected then.

I do agree however, the smaller the club, the more they depend on matchday income which is currently lacking.

 

[Luftstalag14]

Don't forget in all those calculations matchday revenue isn't the same as matchday profit. Clubs are not literally making "hundreds of millions" from matchdays, we're more in the areas of tens of millions for mid sized club over all season. Hosting a sold out game costs shit (especially nowadays with riot police escorts not being paid by federal tax any longer). Licensing it doesn't. You're selling something that isn't physically there.

25% sold out capacity sounds like 25% matchday income, but it's far more than that. Attendances will consist more of people buying day tickets for each games, instead of one season ticket for all which are considerably cheaper in the long run. The cheap standing places are also not offered, due to hygiene concerns. People who want to attend games have to buy the 45 EUR sitting ticket instead of the 20 EUR standing ticket.

Of course they are cost associated hosting a game (security, staff, cleaning, lighting, pitch maintenance etc.) but the cost is relatively insignificant compared to the money bringing in (for us it has been around 150m a season, which is around 18%) and the majority of that revenue translate into profit. Minus the cost it is still around perhaps 15% of our revenue. How do you replace say, 130m a year?

The 25% attendance Bundesliga is pushing proves the point in my opinion. Of course one can say they want the fans back to create the atmosphere again but I suspect money is a big part of that decision.

 

[Yannik]

Of course they are cost associated hosting a game (security, staff, cleaning, lighting, pitch maintenance etc.) but the cost is relatively insignificant compared to the money bringing in (for us it has been around 150m a season, which is around 18%) and the majority of that revenue translate into profit. Minus the cost it is still around perhaps 15% of our revenue. How do you replace say, 130m a year?

The 25% attendance Bundesliga is pushing proves the point in my opinion. Of course one can say they want the fans back to create the atmosphere again but I suspect money is a big part of that decision.

In 2016 we in Hannover played a derby vs Braunschweig with over 2.500 police forces involved. The costs for that (only police) were 1.2m EUR which were paid by the state Lower Saxony. That's barely about 75% what we made from tickets for that game. Due to tax payer outrage in 2019 these exorbitant costs are now ruled to be carried by the clubs.

 

[Newcomer]

Don't forget in all those calculations matchday revenue isn't the same as matchday profit. Hosting a sold out game costs shit (especially with riot police escorts not being paid by federal tax any longer). Licensing it doesn't. You're selling something that isn't physically there.

25% sold out capacity sounds like 25% matchday income, but it's far more than that. Attendances will consist more of people buying day tickets for each games, instead of one season ticket for all which are considerably cheaper in the long run. The cheap standing places are also not offered, due to hygiene concerns. People who want to attend games have to buy the 45 EUR sitting ticket instead of the 20 EUR standing ticket.

What matters is that window, PL clubs have an huge negative balance and the rest of the clubs are far far behind. -956 M for the PL (-869 last year and -1089 the year before). -60 M for the L1 (+83 last year and +257 the year before). -37 for the Serie A (-373 last year and -340 the year before). La Liga is even +80 M (-321 M last year and -100 +M the year before).

We can clearly see that PL clubs are doing their business as usual thanks to TV money while the other leagues are highly impacted (the main point of this discussion with Partey leaving for sub top club like Arsenal). La Liga has even a positive balance ! The Covid impact is clear.

Ligue 1 is intriguing. Went into negative balance because the clubs usually are selling clubs and they couldn't ship their players for the usual expensive prices. Lyon with Depay and Aouar not being sold is a prime example. 80 M worth of players not being sold.

 

[Luftstalag14]

In 2016 we in Hannover played a derby vs Braunschweig with over 2.500 police forces involved. The costs for that (only police) were 1.2m EUR which were paid by the state Lower Saxony. These costs are now ruled to be carried by the clubs.

Yeah, you probably broke even for that game (or made a small profit) but that was one-off situation (derby). Most of the games you have will not entail that kind of cost.

 

[Luftstalag14]

What matters is that window, PL clubs have an huge negative balance and the rest of the clubs are far far behind. -956 M for the PL (-869 last year and -1089 the year before). -60 M for the L1 (+83 last year and +257 the year before). -37 for the Serie A (-373 last year and -340 the year before). La Liga is even +80 M (-321 M last year and -100 +M the year before).

We can clearly see that PL clubs are doing their business as usual thanks to TV money while the other leagues are highly impacted (the main point of this discussion with Partey leaving for sub top club like Arsenal). La Liga has even a positive balance ! The Covid impact is clear.

Ligue 1 is intriguing. Went into negative balance because the clubs usually are selling clubs and they couldn't ship their players for the usual expensive prices. Lyon with Depay and Aouar not being sold is a prime example. 80 M worth of players not being sold.

What I found intriguing is how American football teams such as the Dallas Cowboys are able to rake in sooooooo much money (400m USD of PROFIT in 2019 for the Cowboys I believe) because of their TV deal. I know the US market is huge (400 million people) but how can the likes of Dallas Cowboys be earning so much more than the biggest football/soccer clubs in the world with bigger fanbase and influence is beyond me.

 

[Newcomer]

What I found intriguing is how American football teams such as the Dallas Cowboys are able to rake in sooooooo much money (400m USD of PROFIT in 2019 for the Cowboys I believe) because of their TV deal. I know the US market is huge (400 million people) but how can the likes of Dallas Cowboys be earning so much more than the biggest football/soccer clubs in the world with bigger fanbase and influence is beyond me.

I think our clubs are spending a lot more simply.

I don't follow NFL but US sports rely on draft system. Isn't it the same for NFL ?

Without players amortisation, clubs would be swimming in huge profit.

 

[Yannik]

Yeah, you probably broke even for that game (or made a small profit) but that was one-off situation (derby). Most of the games you have will not entail that kind of cost.

It's an exaggerated example, but that alone eats a fair chunk of revenue when you consider that a move average match would have about 500-1000 forces involved. And clubs in Germany aren't exactly charging a lot for day and season tickets, whereas the security costs are wild due to ultra culture. Maybe it's different in other leagues where the fans are quite certainly milked dry, but here these profits and also merchandizing are basically peanuts to sponsoring and licensing.

 

[Newcomer]

It's an exaggerated example, but that alone eats a fair chunk of revenue when you consider that a move average match would have about 500-1000 forces involved. And clubs in Germany aren't exactly charging a lot for day and season tickets, whereas the security costs are wild due to ultra culture. Maybe it's different in other leagues where the fans are quite certainly milked dry, but here these profits and also merchandizing are basically peanuts to sponsoring and licensing.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...Deloitte-football-money-league-2020_noexp.pdf
Page 16 for Bayern Munchen. 14 % day match revenue amounting to 92 M. Quite low considering your stadium capacity to Parc des Princes (75 k to 48 k places).

 

[Yannik]

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...Deloitte-football-money-league-2020_noexp.pdf
Page 16 for Bayern Munchen. 14 % day match revenue amounting to 92 M. Quite low considering your stadium capacity to Parc des Princes (75 k to 48 k places).

but here again we equate revenues with actual profit. It would be less than 14% if we take into account that licenses and branding are imaginary goods, whereas ticketing is an actual service that requires considerable expenditures.

 

[Luftstalag14]

I think our clubs are spending a lot more simply.

I don't follow NFL but US sports rely on draft system. Isn't it the same for NFL ?

Without players amortisation, clubs would be swimming in huge profit.

It has something to do with their collective bargaining agreement I heard but I still don't get it. I mean, collective bargaining might help them reign in their wage expenses but how can they get that much money, especially from TV deals? Beyond my comprehension.

 

[Luftstalag14]

but here again we equate revenues with actual profit. It would be less than 14% if we take into account that licenses and branding are imaginary goods, whereas ticketing is an actual service that requires considerable expenditures.

Sure it will be less than 14% but still significant enough. What do you mean by licenses, branding and imaginary goods and how they are related to matchday income?